I always like the sound of 0.95 but I don’t think I’d actually use it.Is it manual focus?I’ll stick to the much maligned but actually very good 50 1.250 1.4 I also like until someone handed it back to me in two parts.50 1.8 was also great. It was the first fast lens I owned and very good value.0.95 is impressive though but to a very limited market.

The Lenstip review (on a Sony) left me very unimpressed. I like manual lenses, but not this one - low IQ wide open, severe coma, etc.

Both Mitakon lenses have the same name but are nonetheless different lenses. This one was developed for the Canon EF mount (flange to sensor distance: 44mm), the former one, the one reviewed by LensTip, for the Sony E mount.

The Canon one is much thicker than the Sony one. For instance, its filter diameter is 82mm versus 67mm.

The Lenstip review (on a Sony) left me very unimpressed. I like manual lenses, but not this one - low IQ wide open, severe coma, etc.

Both Mitakon lenses have the same name but are nonetheless different lenses. This one was developed for the Canon EF mount (flange to sensor distance: 44mm), the former one, the one reviewed by LensTip, for the Sony E mount.

The Canon one is much thicker than the Sony one. For instance, its filter diameter is 82mm versus 67mm.

I would be utterly surprised to see D-shaped bokeh balls outside of the f/1.4-f/1.8 range, considering the mirror box geometry of canon cameras and the highly unorthodox shape of the rear light baffle of that mitakon lens.

I would be utterly surprised to see D-shaped bokeh balls outside of the f/1.4-f/1.8 range, considering the mirror box geometry of canon cameras and the highly unorthodox shape of the rear light baffle of that mitakon lens.

Right, but a lot of people would shoot this thing near wide open, so I would imagine it is going to be a problem. For many folks, telling them that their exotic f/0.95 lens has a problem that is unattractive and uncorrectable in post unless you stop it down to f/2 kind of defeats the purpose of lugging all that glass around.

But please educate me for a moment here, as this phenomenon was unknown to me until the 85 f/1.4L IS was released. The D-shaped bokeh is less about the rear baffle and more about the sheer wide open aperture actual size being bigger than the mirror box, right? What in particular does the baffle have to do with this?